65-year retirement clause cannot be enforced against Vice-Chancellor pending Supreme Court clarification.

The petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution in orders dated 8 July 2024 and 29 July 2024.

The petitioner was due to attain 65 years on 8 September 2026. However, his appointment letter dated 12 August 2026 specified his retirement age as 65 years.

He subsequently relinquished prayer (d), and the writ petition proceeded without that prayer.

The State contended that the West Bengal University of Technology Act, 2000 prescribed retirement at 65 years and that the petitioner had accepted the appointment letter and joined office.

1. Whether the Supreme Court’s direction that Vice-Chancellors of the “remaining Universities” would retire at 70 years applied to the petitioner’s University

2. Whether the State could enforce the 65-year retirement age mentioned in the petitioner’s appointment letter on the basis of the West Bengal University of Technology Act, 2000

3. Whether the appointment letter could operate to retire the petitioner at 65 years pending clarification from the Supreme Court

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s orders dated 8 July 2024 and 29 July 2024, issued under Article 142 of the Constitution, including the direction that Vice-Chancellors of the three expressly identified universities would retire at 65 years and those of the “remaining Universities” at 70 years.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s direction that uniform Search-cum-Selection Committees be constituted notwithstanding minor variations in the statutes of the concerned universities.

Although the State relied on the West Bengal University of Technology Act, 2000, which prescribed a retirement age of 65 years, the Court treated the scope and effect of the Supreme Court’s Article 142 directions as requiring clarification if the State intended to insist on the statutory age.

The Court held that the Supreme Court had acted in an exceptional exercise of its Article 142 jurisdiction and had expressly distinguished only three universities for the 65-year retirement age, while prescribing 70 years for the “remaining Universities”.

Since the petitioner’s University was not among the three expressly excluded institutions, the Supreme Court’s order prima facie applied to it.

The Court further noted the Supreme Court’s broader direction to avoid confusion arising from variations in university statutes.

Accordingly, the Court declined to give effect to the appointment letter insofar as it prescribed retirement at 65 years.

However, recognising the State’s reliance on the 2000 Act, the Court directed that, if the State maintained that the petitioner must retire at 65 years, it should seek clarification from the Supreme Court.

It directed that no effect be given to the 65-year retirement stipulation unless and until the State obtained clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the applicable retirement age.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs; the allegations remained unadmitted because affidavits had not been called for.